John, We Hardly Knew Ye

If you can't quite make out John Kasich from the latest hound hatchet-job, you are not alone. A veritable Niagara of falsehoods and distortions leaves the truth equally unrecognizable.

They have a motto over at the newshounds (another fine product of the Outfoxed cabal): "If you don't have something negative to say about Fox News, just make it up." So desperate are the cur critics to invent bias that they have enlisted their most creative fiction writer, deborah, to once again concoct nonexistent conversations and invent phony quotes:
John Kasich , following the lead of other's [sic] on Fox this week, had a segment about the public schools keeping God out of Thanksgiving in Maryland...

Oh right, deb. That's the news story that just a few days ago you ridiculed as nonexistent because you weren't paying attention to the report, or perhaps just because you thought you could get away with it. But we've already covered that. Continuing:
...using the same term, revisionist history, as Jerry Falwell.

How sinister. Kasich also used other Falwell phrases, like "good evening" and "thank you". But Kasich never, at any point in the interview, used the phrase "revisionist history". Kasich did a set-up piece before the interview where the phrase did appear, not as a statement of fact, not as an opinion by Kasich, but in the form of a question to be addressed in the upcoming discussion: "Is this really revisionist history?"
Kasich was unwilling to accept any of Gross's reasonable points asking him what he would do when George Bush appoints a judge to the Supreme Court, who will change the law about prayer in schools.

Here's another shocker: John Kasich didn't mention prayer in schools either. Not once in the entire segment!

KASICH: Michael, what are you going to do when George Bush appoints a judge to the Supreme Court who shares Scalia's views and stop this ridiculous interpretation by the liberal judges about what separation and Church means.

But deborah is just warming up. She then turns her overactive imagination loose on Kasich's next interview:
The segment about working mothers featured a debate between Susan Estrich and Mary Eberstadt who wrote Home Alone America. Eberstadt's book explores the problems of the many kids who come home to an empty house each day because Mom works. These kids are more prone to obesity, psychological problems and drug use. Kasich wanted her to give a solution to the problem almost baiting her to bad mouth the working moms to make his point.

KASICH: It's not a controversial thesis if you can't tell us what you want to do about it. I mean, everybody knows there's problems. The question is, why do we have them? So what do you think the reason is?

That's what deborah calls "baiting" the guest. But maybe she was referring to Kasich's next question:

KASICH: Susan, your reaction? It sounds to me as though if you say there's all these problems out there, we all know there's problems out there, right? We've got to get to what the heck do we do about it. What is your reaction to this type of a book, Susan?

Wait, that can't be it. Kasich wasn't even talking to Eberstadt, so how exactly does this constitute baiting her? (As if there were even a hint of baiting in the question, which of course there wasn't.)
Kasich continued to try to sculpt the message to a 1960 standard by saying, "What about the women who just want to keep up with the Jones." [sic]

Counterfeit Quote Alert! When you see deborah put quotation marks around something, just as night follows day, you know it will be neither verbatim nor accurate:

KASICH: What do we do with those people who do make choices, who get trapped up in this keeping up with the Joneses, right? This drive toward materialism?...At what point do we begin to put the BMWs and the big homes in front of quality time for our kids and how do we deal with it, Susan?

Reads a little different when you tell the truth about what was said.
It was clear that Eberstadt wasn't going to provide the message that Kasich wanted....Then he tried to lay blame on divorced women and it was clear where he was trying to go but never got there.

By this point deborah has been thoroughly embroiled in her tangled web. It wasn't Kasich, but Eberstadt (who "wasn't going to provide the message that Kasich wanted", according to our favorite tail-wagger) who was the first person to bring divorce into the discussion:

EBERSTADT: There are structural reasons, of course. Divorce is easy to get, that creates the absent father problem.

Kasich followed-up on Eberstadt's mention of divorce:

KASICH: Mary, isn't our problem, both with divorce and nobody being at home, isn't it because we do not figure out what we want to do at the beginning of our marriage? Shouldn't we go after the beginning of our marriages to figure out what sort of arrangements we're going to make, both professionally and with regard to family?

Yeah, a whole lot of "laying blame on divorced women" there.

So Miss debbie gave us counterfeit quotes, misrepresented John Kasich's questioning, and attributed multiple statements to Kasich that he didn't say--all in one article! Just another hard day's work for the newshounds in their never-ending pursuit of accuracy and fairness in reporting. Except for them.

posted: Sun - November 28, 2004 at 12:54 AM       j$p  send